Honda Car Forum

"Dave M." wrote:
>
> marcel <w_coyote@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:3F0612A6.1D15F865@wxs.nl...
> >
> >
> > "Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > > "Ricardo" <sovietjamaicanguy@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca> wrote in message >
> > > > Hard to beat a Bimmer for space and comfort, when you've been
> > > > accustomed to cramped U.S. and Japanese cars all your life. Although
> > > > Volvos are pretty good too, 'cos I don't even need the driver's seat
> > > > all the way back on a V40, which is very rare.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? I've ridden in Bimmers. Other than the 7
> > > series perhaps, they are microscopically tiny . . . especially if you
> > > compare them with the average Jap sedan costing many thousands of
> dollars
> > > less. -Dave
> >
> > actually a bimmer 3 series is smaller then a accord
> > but a vw passat is roomier then most jap sedans, but its far from reliable
>
> I spend a lot of time in a VW shop. We are constantly replacing power window
> motors.

They finally recalled and redesigned that little clip that always
breaks. VW has a long history of building great cars and then
forgetting one little detail.

nate

> >
> > marcel
> >

I looked at the site and I read one of the articles on the website "Let's
not go metric".

The more interesting-sounding one, Twelve and Ten:The Case Against the
System of Decimalization
could not be opened -- 'file damaged' error msg.

Firstly I note you have followed the society in using a made-up word
"dozenal". Nothing wrong with that if you can persuade the rest of the
world to use it...

The article in question looks as though it was written some time ago and,
even if it wasn't, manages, in my opinion, to exaggerate and to omit; it is
self-serving after all, let's be clear about that.

Just two examples:-

It is true that in some countries the pound (weight) is used, but it is
clearly derived from the metric kg and to claim otherwise is misleading.
The 500-g pound is half a kg, not any relation to the 453-g Imperial lb.

It is true that many engineering measurements are derived from Imperial.
Not surprising since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain. But you
try screwing an Imperial quarter-inch nut on a metric 6 mm screw!
Related: Try giving an engineering drawing in Imperial to any European
engineer. With what is he/she going to measure the rooms? A measuring tape
imported from the United States or UK? Yes, in Germany there are still
references to a Zollstock (an inch-stick or ruler) but it's only
metaphorical.

There were many units/measures in Europe, which are still found in the
languages. The old French sous is one (20 old centimes, a fifth of a franc,
IIRC) But that doesn't mean it passes an So What? test.

Metric rules (outside the USA), ok?

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Ricardo" <sovietjamaicanguy@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3f0760b2.59949562@news...
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:01:56 +1000, Jim...
> <snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh.rot13> wrote:
>
> >you're kidding.
> >the imperial system is dead and what you're waffling about is the
> >reason why.
> >it's so much simpler just to think ISO about everything.
>
> I concur, but John referred to "stones" (arch.: 1st=14lb), hence my
> comment on the illogical nature of many imperial measurements, with
> the exception of those such as ft and in which are dozenally
> founded. A dozenal metric system based on ft and in would make a lot
> of sense, actually, but that would require transition to a dozenal
> numbering system:
>
> www.dozens.org
> www.dsgb.orbix.co.uk
>
> --
> ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
> e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:37:28 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>I looked at the site and I read one of the articles on the website "Let's
>not go metric".
>
>The more interesting-sounding one, Twelve and Ten:The Case Against the
>System of Decimalization
>could not be opened -- 'file damaged' error msg.
>
>Firstly I note you have followed the society in using a made-up word
>"dozenal". Nothing wrong with that if you can persuade the rest of the
>world to use it...

not going to happen in my lifetime.
>

>The article in question looks as though it was written some time ago and,
>even if it wasn't, manages, in my opinion, to exaggerate and to omit; it is
>self-serving after all, let's be clear about that.
>
>Just two examples:-
>
>It is true that in some countries the pound (weight) is used, but it is
>clearly derived from the metric kg and to claim otherwise is misleading.
>The 500-g pound is half a kg, not any relation to the 453-g Imperial lb.

what countries? i can't think of more than one country that still uses
the archaic pound. the rest of the world has moved on.
>
>It is true that many engineering measurements are derived from Imperial.
>Not surprising since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain. But you
>try screwing an Imperial quarter-inch nut on a metric 6 mm screw!
>Related: Try giving an engineering drawing in Imperial to any European
>engineer. With what is he/she going to measure the rooms? A measuring tape
>imported from the United States or UK? Yes, in Germany there are still
>references to a Zollstock (an inch-stick or ruler) but it's only
>metaphorical.

is it actually possible that there's an engineering drawing made
anywhere in the world in anything but the ISO system? including the
USA?
>
>There were many units/measures in Europe, which are still found in the
>languages. The old French sous is one (20 old centimes, a fifth of a franc,
>IIRC) But that doesn't mean it passes an So What? test.
>
>Metric rules (outside the USA), ok?
>
>DAS

use rot13 on
snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh
to find me

I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing with his calculator.

Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
of .2 meters square.

"Jim..." wrote:
> not going to happen in my lifetime.

> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:37:28 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I looked at the site and I read one of the articles on the website "Let's
> >not go metric".

Wooduuuward wrote:
>
> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing with his calculator.
>
> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
> of .2 meters square.

Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".

What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply didn't
open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Philip® wrote:
> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>
>>Wooduuuward wrote:
>>
>>>I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>
> with his calculator.
>
>>>Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>of .2 meters square.
>>
>>Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>
>>What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>
> didn't
>
>>open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>
>>--
>>Scott
>
> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.

Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m, and
0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").

Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"

Liam Devlin wrote:
> Philip® wrote:
>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>>
>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>>
>> with his calculator.
>>
>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>> of .2 meters square.
>>>
>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>
>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>>
>> didn't
>>
>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott
>>
>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
>> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>
> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
> and
> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>
> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"

Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:

0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
(double check this at http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )

30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.

Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Philip® wrote:
> Liam Devlin wrote:
>
>>Philip® wrote:
>>
>>>"Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com. ..
>>
>>>>Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>>>The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>>>nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>>>as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>>>guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
>>>>
>>>with his calculator.
>>>
>>>>>Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>>>of .2 meters square.
>>>>
>>>>Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>>
>>>>What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
>>>
>>>didn't
>>>
>>>>open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Scott
>>>
>>>Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters here.
>>>12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>
>>Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
>>and
>>0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>>
>>Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
>
> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
>
> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
> (double check this at http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )

No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.

> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.

I understand all that, but you posted:

12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.

The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but the
middle stuff is not right.

> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)

Still time to reconsider

People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening to
latin.



"Philip®" wrote:
>
> Liam Devlin wrote:
> > Philip® wrote:
> >> Liam Devlin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Philip® wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
> >>>
> >>>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
> >>>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
> >>>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
> >>>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
> >>>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes playing
> >>>>>
> >>>> with his calculator.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
> >>>>>> of .2 meters square.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager simply
> >>>>
> >>>> didn't
> >>>>
> >>>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters
> >>>> here. 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
> >>>
> >>> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3 m,
> >>> and
> >>> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
> >>>
> >>> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
> >>
> >> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
> >>
> >> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
> >> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
> >> (double check this at
> >> http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )
> >
> > No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was using
> > and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.
>
> So now, 7.87" -plus- 12" should equal 19.87, right? (0.504698 meter)
> ;^)
>
> >> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.
> >
> > I understand all that, but you posted:
> >
> > 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>
> Loop verification. Try it.
>
> > The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false) equals
> > 30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but
> > the middle stuff is not right.
>
> 12" DOES equal 0.3048"meter (or 30.48cm if you prefer). You may not
> dispute this further.
>
> >
> >> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)
> >
> > Still time to reconsider
>
> Not.
> --*
>
> Philip
>
> "If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
> the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
> wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
> - John Locke (1632-1704)

Wooduuuward wrote:
> "Philip®" wrote:
>>
>> Liam Devlin wrote:
>>> Philip® wrote:
>>>> Liam Devlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Philip® wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Scott M" <smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3F0EEC39.72324AA0@delete_this.yahoo.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wooduuuward wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was in a store the other day to buy some fiberglass cloth,
>>>>>>>> The package stated the cloth was .2 x .2 meters. That meant
>>>>>>>> nothing to me. So I took the package to the clerk who gave me
>>>>>>>> as quizzical look and took the package to the store manager who
>>>>>>>> guessed it might be 12" square. That was after 5 minutes
>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> with his calculator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny, I can get a picture in my mind of 12" square but not
>>>>>>>> of .2 meters square.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that 0.2m (20cm) = 8".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I'm struggling to understand is why the store manager
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> open the packet and measure it if he couldn't do the maths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmmm. I have one of those handy Radio Shack multi converters
>>>>>> here. 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be time to dump your Radio Shack stock, it's 0.2 m, not 0.3
>>>>> m, and
>>>>> 0.30 m = 30.0cm, not 30.48, which is the no. of cm/foot or 12").
>>>>>
>>>>> Using 2.54 cm/inch, .2 m = 7.87"
>>>>
>>>> Misunderstandings. In linear measurements:
>>>>
>>>> 0.2 meters figures to 7.87 inches (agreed)
>>>> 30.0 centimeters figures to 11.811 inches (not 1 foot)
>>>> (double check this at
>>>> http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/EASYlength.html )
>>>
>>> No need to verify anything, I posted the conversion factor I was
>>> using and you agree that 0.2 meters = 7.87" plus 12" = 30.48 cm.
>>
>> So now, 7.87" -plus- 12" should equal 19.87, right? (0.504698 meter)
>> ;^)
>>
>>>> 30.48 centimeters equals 12 inches.
>>>
>>> I understand all that, but you posted:
>>>
>>> 12" = 0.30 meter = 30.48 cm = 12 inches.
>>
>> Loop verification. Try it.
>>
>>> The way I read that is 12" equals 0.30 meters (which is false)
>>> equals
>>> 30.48 cm (also false) = 12". It's a given that 12" = 12 inches, but
>>> the middle stuff is not right.
>>
>> 12" DOES equal 0.3048"meter (or 30.48cm if you prefer). You may not
>> dispute this further.
>>
>>>
>>>> Radio Shack stock intact. ;^)
>>>
>>> Still time to reconsider
>>
>> Not.
>> --*
>>
>> Philip

> People! Who cares what the true conversion was. The point was
> they couldn't figure it out and I couldn't get a mental picture of
> size, using metric. I ended up buying a large piece bigger than I
> needed from a different package. If the manufacturer did their
> job for the consumer, they should have put both on the package,
> anyway the people in the store still think .2 meters = 12" and who
> cares? It just shows that metric (for some people) is like listening
> to latin.

It should be a no brainer coming from the English measure to figure 12"
is a 1/3 of a foot and that since a meter is (roughly) 39" that 12" is
going to be at least a 1/3rd of a meter (0.3 sumthin').... not a quarter
(0.2 sumthin'). Duh. How's that for gymnastics? LOL


"They" should be drummed out of office who forced the metric system on
ANY endeavor outside of medical laboratories and possibly the tooling
industry. You might recall one unmanned Mars landing resulted in a
crash because of a software failure to convert measurement systems. But
I digress.

Also, Top posting sucks, so I moved you to your rightful location in the
established continuum. So there. Nya! ;^)
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)